Guest Commentary: Protests over the protests at clinics that perform abortions

Few topics in modern life have produced as much rancorous and visible public debate as abortion - and one hot point of contention today is simply how close that debate may take place to the clinics that perform them.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week over a challenge to a Massachusetts state law, in McCullen v. Coakley, that creates a fixed, 35-foot "buffer zone" around the entrance or driveways of such clinics, forbidding protesters and others from entering the zone, with the exception of women seeking medical services, workers at the clinic, police and those merely walking to somewhere else.

The law at issue is rooted, its advocates say, in years of conflicts around such clinics in which protesters battle - verbally and sometimes more - and where women are harassed or even blocked as they attempt to enter. They argue that both pro- and anti-abortion demonstrators still can state their views, just not in proximity that's likely to intimidate anyone.

Last week, Justice Elena Kagan questioned the size of the Massachusetts zone, saying she was "a little hung up on why you need so much space." Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that rather than bar all speech in the 35-foot zone, perhaps just a ban on swearing and screaming could be used.

But those in opposition to the law being challenged say that, as applied, it illegally targets only the speech of anti-abortion forces, and creates a constitutional conundrum in which listeners' rights are favored over those of speakers, while offering no reasonable alternative for anti-abortion groups to effectively deliver their message. On Wednesday, justices also noted that not all those at clinics to oppose abortion are protesting: Many are there to offer a calm presentation of their views.

Similar arguments were raised over a Colorado buffer zone law upheld by the Court in 2000, in Hill v. Colorado - its last major ruling on the issue. The Colorado statute set out a 100-foot area around health care facilities, and forbade anti-abortion protesters inside such areas from coming closer than eight feet to anyone for the purpose of counseling or protesting - a so-called "floating buffer zone."

A 1994 federal law forbids violent actions, obstruction, interference, and intimidation outside abortion clinics - in other words, it governs conduct, not the message.

Generally, the First Amendment precludes government from considering "content" or "viewpoint" when regulating speech. Massachusetts officials say a history at such clinics of confrontation and violence justifies overriding that general limitation, in the name of public safety.

The essential point of laws banning protests near such clinics is to shelter women seeking information or abortions from the emotional distress produced by often-graphic language, signs, handouts and "in-your-face" tactics used by anti-abortion forces, who see such actions as the final opportunity to reverse a decision to end a pregnancy.

And the equally basic First Amendment question raised is whether protection of "vigorous public debate" over significant issues in our society can be muzzled because of the undeniable distress it causes some women who hear - or are challenged by - that debate.

A clue as to how the Court may view McCullen may be found in a 2011 ruling in which emotional distress to the listener also was a core issue, involving protesters at a funeral service for a U.S. Marine killed in the line of duty. In that case, Snyder v. Phelps, the father of the fallen Marine sued a group known as the Westboro Baptist Church over its virulently anti-gay signs and visible picketing at his son's funeral.

In an 8-1 decision, the court upheld the Westboro group's right to protest and to use the most-effective place and manner of free speech, as long as it did not physically disrupt the services, and even if it caused pain to the Snyder family.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Guest Commentary: Protests over the protests at clinics that perform abortions

Few topics in modern life have produced as much rancorous and visible public debate as abortion ? and one hot point of contention today is simply how close that debate may take place to the clinics

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Join Our Team!

If you are interested in working for an innovative media company, you can learn more by visiting: